Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12 Balu @ Balasubramaniam (P.W.21) produced Elangovan (A3) before Parameswara (P.W.58), Investigating Officer. Elangovan (A3) made a startling disclosure about his involvement not only in this case, but also in the triple murder case in Karur District and a robbery case in Paramathi limits. The statement of Elangovan (A3) was recorded in the presence of Balu @ Balasubramaniam (P.W.21) and Murugesan (P.W.30). The police formed a special team comprising Parameswara (P.W.58), Subramanian (P.W.59), Shanmugam (P.W.55) and other policemen to effect seizures not only in this case, but also in the other two cases.

110 Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had impressed upon this Court the necessity to consider these convictions as an antecedent character and conduct of Kamaraj (A2). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had further urged that these convictions reflect that Kamaraj (A2) is a history sheeter so far as specialised offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC are concerned which relate to illegal/forceful trespass and robbery.

111 But, one crucial mitigating aspect in all these cases is that, though Kamaraj (A2) has been convicted for house trespass and robbery and which conviction we cannot examine at present, there had not been a commission of an offence relating to hurt or bodily harm on any individual in those cases. They are offences committed by a person who has committed the offence of robbery but had never thought it fit to even cause harm or at least, simple injury to the victim. Apart from this, from a reading of the charges in the present case and in the Karur case, there appears to have been an unholy nexus and companionship between Santhanam @ Manoj Kumar (A1) and Kamaraj (A2), which had resulted in the commission of heinous offences. Admittedly, Santhanam @ Manoj Kumar (A1) is no more. In this case, when we ask ourselves the question, had Kamaraj (A2) operated alone, would he have committed the offence under Section 302 IPC or murder had occurred owing to his allegiance and companionship with Santhanam @ Manoj Kumar (A1), we do not have a definitive answer. This is a factor to be considered when a further preponderance has to be made whether Kamaraj (A2) deserves death penalty as the only mode of sentencing or whether a chance could be given to him to think over his actions and reform in future. This becomes all the more crucial when we take into account the age and the family circumstances of Kamaraj (A2). We have been informed that in 2011, when the present occurrence took place, Kamaraj (A2) was aged about 32 years and he has a wife, a daughter and a son. His children are young. The impact on the family, in the event of the death sentence inflicted on him being confirmed, would be discussed subsequently.